SIRI SANJEEVINI PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMAT ,SIRWAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , RAICHUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condone the delay in filing the present appeal for A.Y. 2020-21 before this Tribunal. 4. On merits of the case, the Ld.AR submitted that for A.Y. 2017- 18, the only issue disallowed by NFAC is regarding the Page 17 ITA Nos. 1386 & 1387/Bang/2024 commission paid to pigmy agents for not withholding the taxes on the interest paid

M/S. THE BHAVASARA KSHATRIYA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,MYSURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), MYSURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roym/S Bhavasara Kshatriya Co- Operative Society Ltd., 279, Benkinawab Street, Mandi Mohalla, Mysureu-570 001. Pan – Aadat 2458 F Appelant Assessee By : Shri V Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 03.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.01.2024

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 8. On merit, the ld.AR submitted that the assessee has claimed deduction, which is as follows:- 1) Under Section 80P(2)(a) Rs.14,76,803 2) Under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) - Rs.13,98,572/- Total Rs.28,75,375/- 9. The ld.AO denied the above exemption claimed by the assessee

SHRI. KHADARI SYYEADHUSENPEERA SYYEADKHAJAAMIN,BAGALKOT vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE, , BENGALURU

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2019-20

condonation of delay. Being so, we refrain from going into other grounds of appeal on merits. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine. Hence, he submitted that this appeal of the assessee is to be dismissed in limine. 7. I heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee

VIJAYA BANK LTD.,HAVERI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

condoning the delay for appeal despite reasonable and sufficient cause. 5. The Ld. AO erred in treating the appellant as an assessee-in-default u/s. 201(1) of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the same. 6. The Ld. AO erred in treating the appellant as an assessee

M/S VIJAYA BANK LIMITED ,HAVERI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS WARD , DAVANGERE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

condoning the delay for appeal despite reasonable and sufficient cause. 5. The Ld. AO erred in treating the appellant as an assessee-in-default u/s. 201(1) of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the same. 6. The Ld. AO erred in treating the appellant as an assessee

M/S. UDAYA RAVI ARECANUT COMPANY,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, SHIMOGA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2022-23

condoning the delay in filing the appeal as the delay was substantial without being the sufficient cause for Delay. The delay was only due to the negligence of the assessee firm. M/s. Udaya Ravi Arecanut Company, Shivamogga Page 6 of 9 8. We have heard the rival submissions & perused the materials available on record. It is undisputed fact that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. VIJAYA BANK, BARODA CORPORATE CENTRE BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX

In the result, the appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2010-11

section 147, the Assessee preferred the appeal before the ld CIT (A) who deleted the addition. 5. This appeal is e-filed by the Revenue with a delay of 180 days. Application for condonation of delay along with Affidavit is filed by the Revenue stating that " I Shri. Santosh Bheemaiah, IRS son of Sri. Bheemaiah.B aged 42 about years, Deputy

STATE BANK OF INDIA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 16(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. As far as merits of the appeal is concerned, the facts are that the assessee bank paid during the FY 2012-13 a sum of Rs.60,67,388 being interest on deposit to Karnataka Building & Other Construction Workers Welfare Board. The assessee did not deduct tax at source at the time

THE VISHWAS CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,BIJAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, BIJAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

section 194A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Appellant prays for leave to add, modify, delete, or introduce additional 5 General Ground grounds of appeal at any time before the Appeal is disposed of. Total Tax Effect Rs. 1,64,64,910 Page 3 of 9 2. This appeal is filed with a delay of 70 days

THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD,BELLARY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS CIRCLE, HUBLI-DHARWAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

condone the delay in filing appeal before Ld CIT(A). 9. We have noticed earlier that the Ld CIT(A) has also adjudicated the issues on merits. The ld A.R placed his reliance on the following decisions to submit that the non-furnishing of copies of Form No.15G and Form No.15H to the Commissioner of Income tax would not make

SURENDRA LAXMANRAO VAIDYA,GADAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, GADAG

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshri Surendra Laxmanrao Vaidya, Kariyamma Kallu Badavane, Near Hatalgeri Naka, Gadag. ….Appellant Pan Avupv2546H Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Gadag. ……Respondent.

condoned and the appeal is admitted and heard. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : 3 3. The Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an employee of Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank and filed the Return of Income electronically on 25.3.2013 with total income of Rs.6,13,770. In the Return of Income filed

M/S. MANJUNATHESHWARA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(2)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

condone the delay in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose of this appeal on merits. 3. The grounds raised read as follows:- “1. The appellant denies himself liable to be taxed on disallowance of Rs.6,89,167/- as assessed by the learned CIT(A) as against the return income of Rs. NIL under the facts 2 ITA No.2238/Bang/2019. M/s.Manjunatheshwara

M/S. PRATHAMIKA KRUSHI PATTINA SAHAKARA NIYAMITA,HOSAPETE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KALABURGI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

condone the delay in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose of this appeal on merits. 2 M/s.Prathamika Krushi Pattina Sahakara Niyamita. 3. The grounds raised read as follows: “1. The impugned order u/s 263, dated 13.03.2019 is opposed to the facts of the case and the law, as it is passed in haste violating the principles of natural justice

M/S. PRATHAMIKA KRUSHI PATTINA SAHAKARA NIYAMITA,HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KALABURGI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

condone the delay in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose of this appeal on merits. 2 M/s.Prathamika Krushi Pattina Sahakara Niyamita. 3. The grounds raised read as follows: “1. The impugned order u/s 263, dated 13.03.2019 is opposed to the facts of the case and the law, as it is passed in haste violating the principles of natural justice

VISHNU VARDHANA RAM YARA,MACHILIPATNAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2013-14

194A of the Act has been deducted. Assessee did not file return of income. Therefore, it was also considered as income for the impugned Assessment Year. Further, as per para 4.3 of the Assessment Order, the AO has noted that assessee has received salry from AMD R & D Centre India Pvt. Ltd., amounting to Rs.38,79,154/- and Achronix Semiconductor

S.K.GOLDSMITHS INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-1(2), MANGALURU

In the result, we pass the following:

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. S. K. Goldsmiths Industrial Co-Operative Vs. Ito, Society Ltd., Ward – 1(2), Vishwasoudha, Ashoknagar Post, Mangalore. Kottara Chowki, Mangalore – 575 006. Pan : Aabas 4056 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sriram V. Roa, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.12.2023

condone the delay of four days in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 3. The solitary issue raised is whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming the part of the disallowance made by the AO under section 80P of the Act. 4. Brief facts of the case are as follows: Assessee

M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE - 3, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

194A expressly exempts ITA Nos. 2413 to 2415/Bang/2019 Page 9 of 15 the Bank from deducting the tax at source on interest payable by the Bank to its members and other Cooperative Societies. As stated by the assessee, they did not properly construe this provision. By mis-construing this provision they also did not deduct tax from the interest payable

M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE - 3, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

194A expressly exempts ITA Nos. 2413 to 2415/Bang/2019 Page 9 of 15 the Bank from deducting the tax at source on interest payable by the Bank to its members and other Cooperative Societies. As stated by the assessee, they did not properly construe this provision. By mis-construing this provision they also did not deduct tax from the interest payable

M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE- 3, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

194A expressly exempts ITA Nos. 2413 to 2415/Bang/2019 Page 9 of 15 the Bank from deducting the tax at source on interest payable by the Bank to its members and other Cooperative Societies. As stated by the assessee, they did not properly construe this provision. By mis-construing this provision they also did not deduct tax from the interest payable